...the media never really represents the tuba-playing, soccer-playing, science-loving,
bird-watching girl because she's just not an easy sell.

Sunday, November 12, 2006

Speechless, almost

Help me out here. I blearily opened the paper this morning and found this headline:

Religious leader's ouster raises gay question

Same-sex attraction increasingly recognized as rooted in biology

::blink. blink blink:: Okay, I was up earlier than I wanted to be and hadn't had my tea yet. ::rub rub:: Let's read the article; surely it's not saying what I think it is.

Prominent evangelical Ted Haggard's murky admission of sin following allegations of an affair with a male prostitute has reignited a volatile argument over the roots of homosexuality — a debate where religion, politics and science collide.

Let me see if I'm reading this correctly. "Reignited" implies that the argument about causality of Teh Gay had been settled, and the fact that the ignition source is Reverend Ted's statement that he thinks it's biological implies that the argument has been settled in favor of the "it's a choice" camp. This is insipid. And nuts.

Ted Haggard paid a gay prostitute for sex and meth behind his family's back for three years? All the while decrying homosexuality, saying the Bible's instructions on the matter are cut and dried? And when he finally came out, as it were, he says he's repulsed by this vile temptation, this dark side of his life he was unable to resist?

Oh, well, that settles it, then. If he says it's innate it must be innate. Thank goodness Reverend Ted brought this up; otherwise we would have had no idea that being gay isn't just a choice.

::cough::bullshit::cough::

Seriously, what the fuck is this? Who is the nimrod pounding this crap out for the AP? What rock has he been living under for the past twenty years?

Scientific evidence, though far from conclusive, points strongly toward biological underpinnings of sexual attraction. Many evangelical Christians believe that people can exercise choice over how they deal with same-sex attractions, and some in the movement have begun to acknowledge at least some genetic role.

Evangelicals and science. Always an interesting mixture. Ah, but they still keep their out, still keep the "choice" card tucked into a vest pocket. To wit:

"Whatever the root cause, people make a choice," Chambers said. "Not about their feelings, but about what they do with those feelings based on convictions and not on science."

I love these people. Truly I do. They are better at having their cake and eating it too than just about anyone in America today. Now they--or at least some of them--will grudgingly admit that genetics might have something to do with orientation, but they preserve their cudgel of judgment by asserting that, well, acting on orientation is a choice anyway so it doesn't matter why you're oriented the way you are, we get to condemn you anyway and fight for legislation that will punish you in many insidious ways.

But the argument has been reignited, by God, thanks to Reverend Ted. Why, if he hadn't been outed by Mike Jones we might never have had this discussion in the public arena! We surely never would have suspected that the choice involved being who you are, rather than deciding who you want to be! We'd be condemning people for the wrong thing! Thank you, Reverend Ted!